From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755304AbcEZVqa (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 May 2016 17:46:30 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37364 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754467AbcEZVq3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 May 2016 17:46:29 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 17:46:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Sage Weil X-X-Sender: sage@cpach.fuggernut.com To: Linus Torvalds cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , ceph-devel Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 4.7-rc1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.25]); Thu, 26 May 2016 21:46:28 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 26 May 2016, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > > > Pulled and then immediately unpulled again. > > .. and having thought it over, I ended up re-pulling again, so now > it's going through my build test. > > Consider this discussion a strong encouragement to *not* do this in > the future - sending me pull requests at the end of the merge window > without them having been in linux-next is a no-no, unless those pull > requests are small and trivial (or have fixes that I'd pull even > outside the merge window, of course). Thank you! We'll be sure we include things in -next well beforehand next time around, especially if it's a big diff like this one. One point of clarification, though: in the past I've squashed down fixes discovered during testing if the branch hasn't hit a stable tree yet (e.g., your tree). AIUI this is(was?) standard procedure for things in -next. Do you want us to avoid squashing if we are creeping up on pull request time, or are you primarily interested in, say, seeing that what has been in -next for a while is substantially the same as what you pull, and has perhaps been there unmodified for at least a few days? Or would you rather see fixup patches if we identify issues in the last few days of testing? Thanks- sage